Command & Conquer (2013) Options

[Svea Rike]

Well the poll says it all. I've already cast my vote.

[Pandut]

I'm just pretending it doesn't exist.

[SGM. Jazzie Spur...]

Dunno about multiplayer I just suck at RTS xD

[Septone]

Well.. BioWare Victory and EA already said that the Campaign will be release with some Co-Op thingys and obviously for Online Multiplayer.. And guess what? Jarmen Kell is back!

[(USA)Bruce]

*sighs*

So this isnt Generals 2 and its sequel so....Why do they still keep updating stuff from generals and call the terrorist faction the Gla_

[MARS]

Because at some point, this was meant to BE Generals 2 but then some corporate fuckwit told them to retool it into a generic C&C-themed F2P game to maximise profits.

[Warpath]

This is what I'll do.... (holds up CnC F2P and EA LA and dumps it to a giant 1984 style Memory Hole) "CnC Online? What CnC Online?" (Proceeds with Evil Laughter)>MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!...HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Shock]

Gee, stop spewing acid for once, it seems like it can become a decent game.

For all your raging about this, I dont think it would have been a better game had it been a 'traditional' pay-for-a-box model, because in this model they have to make the game good in multiplayer, and its entire model is built on multiplayer support and extra content. That is miles ahead of the patch support and initial balance for games like CnC3 and RA3 (anyone remember power plant crawling, or wall spamming?).

They're stealing a lot of stuff from proven games & concepts such as League of Legends and Starcraft 2, which I think is a better idea than trying to reinvent the wheel as they did with Origin.

[X1Destroy]

If I have to choose I would rather play the exact Generals 1 with better graphic instead of this new shit. Campaign or not, as long as it an optional thing for a multiplayer game it won't be any good.

And Generals wasn't exactly copying SC.

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 27 Feb 2013, 17:01

[Serialkillerwhal...]

First thing i do is gonna be swtich around the sound files and names so i remove all the EU references from it.

Seriously, this eurocenterism is getting worse.

Tiberium Series: No real nations used so yes
RA1: Fairly good if too much european units in a worldwide alliance
RA2: Bit more realistic with SK and such
RA3: Very well done
Generals 1: Good, rather well made if incomplete
ZH: Shitty plot fueled by a need to get into the chinese market.
Generals 2: EU replaces US as faction? Well a natural response of ZH's crap-that's-supposed-to-be-a-plot NATO would have been more accurate.

I'm only playing campaign for the plot.

[MARS]

Dude, this is coming from a person who does not even LIKE the EU (I do like Europe as a cultural entity/concept though), but the fact that you're trying to see some kind of 'pattern' here is ridiculous. These games have been made over the span of decades by this point and the people who made them have changed over time. Suggesting that eurocentrism is some sort of underlying theme that is actually intended by anyone is kinda stretching it. Keep in mind that RA1 was basically an alternate universe version of WW2 sans the Pacific theatre, so it's only natural that the European nations would be doing most of the fighting against the Soviets just like they did most of the fighting against the Nazis in our reality. RA2 still featured American characters as the main focus of its narrative and RA3 is too ridiculous to read anything into it. Considering what little story ZH had, the addition of a European faction DOES actually make some sense because the US went into isolation. ROTR took this into account by making the formerly isolated Americans more reasonable and humble whereas the Euros became more gung-ho and revanchist.

[(USA)Bruce]

Red alert had some seriousness to it but now its a kids game IMO,

Sure you may call it ballenced and all but; I dont like it when my entire naval fleet gets juggled by a 16 year old schoolgirl,

ra just abuses the chrono/time machino thing too much....

I wouldnt say no to euros if there might be US coming in the later Dlcs, but Euros will have an AF and tank gen so....Doubt it

[Serialkillerwhal...]

my solution to schoolgirl.

Time machine.

That or use two futuretanks and have one use it's laser ability to instagib her

[Shock]

First thing i do is gonna be swtich around the sound files and names so i remove all the EU references from it.

Seriously, this eurocenterism is getting worse.

Tiberium Series: No real nations used so yes
RA1: Fairly good if too much european units in a worldwide alliance
RA2: Bit more realistic with SK and such
RA3: Very well done
Generals 1: Good, rather well made if incomplete
ZH: Shitty plot fueled by a need to get into the chinese market.
Generals 2: EU replaces US as faction? Well a natural response of ZH's crap-that's-supposed-to-be-a-plot NATO would have been more accurate.

I'm only playing campaign for the plot.

So American exceptionalism which these games have been laced with since the beginning of gaming ever, is okay, but once we see a EU faction somewhere its ''eurocentrism''.

Why do you play Rise of the Reds? Why don't you just stop playing 1.8 as the ECA clearly isnt for you.

[MARS]

Haven't you gotten that memo, Shock? Pop culture absolutely has to revolve around and be about Americans at all times; they can't just merely be 'involved' in a scenario in which other parties play the bigger, more logical role.

Side note: Adding insult to injury, most of the Allied tech in RA1 was based on American vehicles^^

[Alias]

The thing that truly boggles my mind is the fact he isn't even an American to begin with.

[wargame10]

well that guy is canadian wants to be full time american fan boy for some lame reason


he wants only the USA to be a badass faction among other factions thats why he rant like that

[Cobretti]

The only thing that bothers me about that is that the EU seems to be a straight ripoff of the US from Generals 1 (thus apparently precluding a US faction in future expansion packs), and that the US doesn't seem to be returning at all (if the GLA can then it'd certainly follow that the US could too). I'd just have named the EU "NATO" or "Western Coalition" with units that take design cues from both US and European designs ala the Allies from Red Alert and thus satisfied people who wanted the US to return and European countries to have a role in the game.

[Serialkillerwhal...]

Simply put. The problem isn't fanboyism.
It's realism.
A military with a larger budget and superior tech shouldn't be replaced with one that has neither. It stinks of advertising over plot.

So American exceptionalism which these games have been laced with since the beginning of gaming ever, is okay, but once we see a EU faction somewhere its ''eurocentrism''.

Really, canada will never be a major playable faction in these games due to our comparatively small market so i latched on to the nation more alike to our own. And it's not britain. those idiots don't even know what a football looks like.
Until canada takes center stage (Which hopefully won't take too long given our oil reserves and tech). I really can't do much but cheer for the US can I?

Eurocenterism is simply the problem that europe has a large and very rich market, the same with asia, so unless they really have a good reason for them to win, it's just marketing.
I wouldn't even complain if the GLA won and ZH ended with the UN blown up. It would make sense, instead of having the third-party without any real tactical innovation and technological capability other than brute force.

Simply relabeling the US as the EU is one of those things that are caused by the standards that the US doesn't mind being painted as the bad guy unlike say, the Europeans (Not counting germans in WWII despictions). or the Asians. It's really annoying how marketing matters more than coherent plot with the "24 hours in the future" storylines.

I'm just saying what i think.

Until canada gets a larger postion in the world stage, what can i do?

This post has been edited by Serialkillerwhale: 2 Mar 2013, 12:24

[X1Destroy]

Simply put. The problem isn't fanboyism.
It's realism.
A military with a larger budget and superior tech shouldn't be replaced with one that has neither. It stinks of advertising over plot.

I bet you prefer the typical American save the day plot, right?

And no one said the EU didn't have any advance technological weapons in ZH, though the china superpower ending is stupid.

Really, canada will never be a major playable faction in these games due to our comparatively small market so i latched on to the nation more alike to our own. And it's not britain. those idiots don't even know what a football looks like.
Until canada takes center stage (Which hopefully won't take too long given our oil reserves and tech). I really can't do much but cheer for the US can I?

If every canadian men are like you, we will have the North American Union in no time.

Eurocenterism is simply the problem that europe has a large and very rich market, the same with asia, so unless they really have a good reason for them to win, it's just marketing.
I wouldn't even complain if the GLA won and ZH ended with the UN blown up. It would make sense, instead of having the third-party without any real tactical innovation and technological capability other than brute force.

It's not just Europe.........EA would do anything to sell it's craps, as long as the places have many people who want to buy them location is no matter to them.

Simply relabeling the US as the EU is one of those things that are caused by the standards that the US doesn't mind being painted as the bad guy unlike say, the Europeans (Not counting germans in WWII despictions). or the Asians. It's really annoying how marketing matters more than coherent plot with the "24 hours in the future" storylines.

Facepalm, no comment.

[Karpet]

Simply put. The problem isn't fanboyism.
It's realism.
A military with a larger budget and superior tech shouldn't be replaced with one that has neither. It stinks of advertising over plot.


Really, canada will never be a major playable faction in these games due to our comparatively small market so i latched on to the nation more alike to our own. And it's not britain. those idiots don't even know what a football looks like.
Until canada takes center stage (Which hopefully won't take too long given our oil reserves and tech). I really can't do much but cheer for the US can I?

Eurocenterism is simply the problem that europe has a large and very rich market, the same with asia, so unless they really have a good reason for them to win, it's just marketing.
I wouldn't even complain if the GLA won and ZH ended with the UN blown up. It would make sense, instead of having the third-party without any real tactical innovation and technological capability other than brute force.

Simply relabeling the US as the EU is one of those things that are caused by the standards that the US doesn't mind being painted as the bad guy unlike say, the Europeans (Not counting germans in WWII despictions). or the Asians. It's really annoying how marketing matters more than coherent plot with the "24 hours in the future" storylines.

I'm just saying what i think.

Until canada gets a larger postion in the world stage, what can i do?

This coming from a die-hard US fanboy.
Can't we, for once, have a game where the US aren't there? Sure, we can paint the middle eastern or the Russians or the Asains as villains, but we can't either use Europe instead of USA or paint USA as the bad guys?

If we painted USA as bad in the ZH or RotR story, I bet you would uninstall the game.

I facepalm at you.

AMERICA FUCK YEAH = OVERUSED.
The Far-Eastern countries as bad = overused.

What is your problem?

Double facepalm as one isn't enough.

[Serialkillerwhal...]

China saving the day in ZH came out of nowhere after being heavyily destroyed in Generals.
Can you argue against that?

[Karpet]

China saving the day in ZH came out of nowhere after being heavyily destroyed in Generals.
Can you argue against that?

What specifically destroyed them? The Astana riots weren't in China. The Beijing nuclear incident was dealt with, the Hong Kong GLA were driven out of there, and so were the Three Gorges Dam GLA.

They drove them out of other countries allowing them to build up.

[Serialkillerwhal...]

They more or less lost all their outside military holdings and took a serious command and control hit. In fact, if we don't count wussing out, they were hit harder than the US (Who only lost a single carrier opposed to a capital).

Europe not having an army was idiotic by itself. Then having china take over and having the EU become US mk.II just stinks of bad writing.

[Maxner12]

This coming from a die-hard US fanboy.
Can't we, for once, have a game where....

If I could, I would upvote this comment hard or anything. Also, I don't get it why is it such a problem if the USA doesn't get represented in a game. In a great deal of the movies and games, the plot focuses around America saving the day and aiding it's whiny allies who can't even go to toilet without the help of the americans. I for one, like the new CnC for atleast putting the EU in place for a change of settings (will see how much I like it after it gets released). As a non-american, I'm literally tired of seeing pro-americanism flowing from every source of media. And now not to mention one of the most underrepresented country in the history of gaming: Australia (by underrepresented, I mean they don't even get mentioned).
TL;DR version: everything must be about the USA. No exceptions.